Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/his ... dents.html


Clinton 15th. Reagan 10th. I have to vomit.


"The five best presidents, according to the historians, were Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt, and Harry Truman, in that order. Rounding out the top 10 were John F. Kennedy at six, Thomas Jefferson, Dwight Eisenhower, Woodrow Wilson, and Reagan.

The worst presidents, according to the survey, were James Buchanan at 42, Andrew Johnson at 41, Franklin Pierce, William Henry Harrison, Warren Harding, Millard Fillmore, George W. Bush, John Tyler, Herbert Hoover, and Rutherford B. Hayes.

The survey was conducted for C-SPAN, the cable network, among 65 presidential historians and scholars, who ranked the 42 former occupants of the White House on 10 attributes of leadership: public persuasion, crisis leadership, economic management, moral authority, international relations, administrative skills, relations with Congress, "vision/setting an agenda," "pursued equal justice for all," and "performance within the context of his times."







"I'd like to thank my Momma and my Poppa and Condi."



Among the historians and political scientists who participated in the ratings were H. W. Brands, Thomas Cronin, Robert Dallek, Alvin Felzenberg, Fred Greenstein, and James McPherson.

- no doubt all liberal fvckheads, right?

George Washington, to this day, is still the best. Lincoln usurped more Constitutional boundaries than any President before or after him with his lust ending in the deaths of over 600,000 American citizens. EASILY the worst.

I'm gonna guess Lincoln wouldn't have ranked this high in 1865. Bush will move way up this list as history redeems him.

AZGrizFan wrote:I'm gonna guess Lincoln wouldn't have ranked this high in 1865. Bush will move way up this list as history redeems him.

AZ, I guarantee you if you perform at your new job like your master and commander dubya...

redemption will be a long time coming!!

AZGrizFan wrote:I'm gonna guess Lincoln wouldn't have ranked this high in 1865. Bush will move way up this list as history redeems him.

You're right. It's easy to win reelection when the majority of people that didn't vote for you in 1860 weren't in the Union for the next election. That being said, research and read many newspaper commentaries and you'll see how people loathed the war and Lincoln. I suggest all of you go out and read Daniel Farber's Lincoln's Constitution. It's pretty balanced, he gives Lincoln his due but also calls him out when he went too far, like going beyond suspending habeas corpus and shutting down newspapers that opposed him(which were many). Hell, Lincoln imprisioned political opponents and held unlawful military trials, the former was something Bush didn't even do.

Wedgebuster wrote:

AZ, I guarantee you if you perform at your new job like your master and commander dubya...

redemption will be a long time coming!!

How random is Indonesia's opinion?

AZGrizFan wrote:I'm gonna guess Lincoln wouldn't have ranked this high in 1865. Bush will move way up this list as history redeems him.

I'm not sure history will redeem Bush, but it's premature to rank him this low this early.

How about Harry Truman at number 5?

Cap'n Cat wrote:http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/his ... dents.html


Clinton 15th. Reagan 10th. I have to vomit.


"The five best presidents, according to the historians, were Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt, and Harry Truman, in that order. Rounding out the top 10 were John F. Kennedy at six, Thomas Jefferson, Dwight Eisenhower, Woodrow Wilson, and Reagan.

The worst presidents, according to the survey, were James Buchanan at 42, Andrew Johnson at 41, Franklin Pierce, William Henry Harrison, Warren Harding, Millard Fillmore, George W. Bush, John Tyler, Herbert Hoover, and Rutherford B. Hayes.

The survey was conducted for C-SPAN, the cable network, among 65 presidential historians and scholars, who ranked the 42 former occupants of the White House on 10 attributes of leadership: public persuasion, crisis leadership, economic management, moral authority, international relations, administrative skills, relations with Congress, "vision/setting an agenda," "pursued equal justice for all," and "performance within the context of his times."







"I'd like to thank my Momma and my Poppa and Condi."



Among the historians and political scientists who participated in the ratings were H. W. Brands, Thomas Cronin, Robert Dallek, Alvin Felzenberg, Fred Greenstein, and James McPherson.

- no doubt all liberal fvckheads, right?

Naturally the right-leaning USNWR finds scholars that vastly inflate Dubya's ranking. Millard Fillmore was a titan compared to W.

Purple For Life wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:I'm gonna guess Lincoln wouldn't have ranked this high in 1865. Bush will move way up this list as history redeems him.

Ditto!

Bushy's bailout BS with Paulson sunk his ship.

Gil Dobie wrote:Bushy's bailout BS with Paulson sunk his ship.

Yeah, and that's all.





BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAA!

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Gil Dobie wrote:Bushy's bailout BS with Paulson sunk his ship.

Yeah, and that's all.





BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAA!

You been listening to Rush again

Wedgebuster wrote:

AZ, I guarantee you if you perform at your new job like your master and commander dubya...

redemption will be a long time coming!!

Personally, I could give a flying vertical fcuk what Not-so-great Britian, Germany, or any other country on the other side of the pond thinks of our President. And, regarding combat readiness, it's real easy to be combat ready when your troops never DO anything. Clinton spent 8 years running from every fight. THAT'S the world Bush inherited.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Purple For Life wrote:
:l:

Ditto!

Bush will have the last laugh. I guarantee it.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Wedgebuster wrote:

AZ, I guarantee you if you perform at your new job like your master and commander dubya...

redemption will be a long time coming!!

Personally, I could give a flying vertical fcuk what Not-so-great Britian, Germany, or any other country on the other side of the pond thinks of our President. And, regarding combat readiness, it's real easy to be combat ready when your troops never DO anything. Clinton spent 8 years running from every fight. THAT'S the world Bush inherited.

I can't/won't defend Bush, but on this subject, AzGriz is SPOT ON!!!!

How WRONG you are, as usual, Z.

Why should we give a flying fuck what other countries think? Because of the global economy your party pushed us into.

And to claim Clinton ran from fights is ludicris. He took care of the Balkans War, and did as much as the Republican Congress would allow him to in the Middle East.

What wars did you want him to get into?


And the only laughter concerning Bush will be at how dumb people were to vote TWICE for him.

Col Hogan wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Personally, I could give a flying vertical fcuk what Not-so-great Britian, Germany, or any other country on the other side of the pond thinks of our President. And, regarding combat readiness, it's real easy to be combat ready when your troops never DO anything. Clinton spent 8 years running from every fight. THAT'S the world Bush inherited.

I can't/won't defend Bush, but on this subject, AzGriz is SPOT ON!!!!

You boys are old enough to remember that it was the Republicans that wept inconsolably every time Clinton launched a cruise missle; indeed, their whimpering about the arrogant foreign policy of the Clinton Administration would have brought tears to a glass eye, nor have we forgotten that the guy who attacked the WTC on Clinton's watch is rotting in prison for life while yet another Bush got punked by an Ayrab.

houndawg wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:
I can't/won't defend Bush, but on this subject, AzGriz is SPOT ON!!!!

You boys are old enough to remember that it was the Republicans that wept inconsolably every time Clinton launched a cruise missle; indeed, their whimpering about the arrogant foreign policy of the Clinton Administration would have brought tears to a glass eye, nor have we forgotten that the guy who attacked the WTC on Clinton's watch is rotting in prison for life while yet another Bush got punked by an Ayrab.

More like fvcked by an A-Rab, and we should be so proud!

dbackjon wrote:How WRONG you are, as usual, Z.

Why should we give a flying fuck what other countries think? Because of the global economy your party pushed us into.

And to claim Clinton ran from fights is ludicris. He took care of the Balkans War, and did as much as the Republican Congress would allow him to in the Middle East.

What wars did you want him to get into?


And the only laughter concerning Bush will be at how dumb people were to vote TWICE for him.

Oh, I see. Now even the Global Economy is the fault of republicans? Jesus....is there ANYTHING you won't blame on us?

And, how about responding appropriately to terrorist attacks? That would have been a start. His answer was to launch 20-30 tomahawks, go get a blowjob, and call it a day.

Blaming republicans for the global economy makes more sense than not worrying about what the fuck others think about us....


And Clinton captured the terrorists that attacked us.

Did Bush actually capture any? 9/11 - nope. Anthrax attacks - nope.

AZGrizFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:How WRONG you are, as usual, Z.

Why should we give a flying [*]f**k what other countries think? Because of the global economy your party pushed us into.

And to claim Clinton ran from fights is ludicris. He took care of the Balkans War, and did as much as the Republican Congress would allow him to in the Middle East.

What wars did you want him to get into?


And the only laughter concerning Bush will be at how dumb people were to vote TWICE for him.

Oh, I see. Now even the Global Economy is the fault of republicans? Jesus....is there ANYTHING you won't blame on us?

And, how about responding appropriately to terrorist attacks? That would have been a start. His answer was to launch 20-30 tomahawks, go get a blowjob, and call it a day.

Hell of a lot of good the Republican idea of an "appropriate response" has done us.........

dbackjon wrote:How WRONG you are, as usual, Z.

Why should we give a flying [*]f**k what other countries think? Because of the global economy your party pushed us into.

And to claim Clinton ran from fights is ludicris. He took care of the Balkans War, and did as much as the Republican Congress would allow him to in the Middle East.

What wars did you want him to get into?


And the only laughter concerning Bush will be at how dumb people were to vote TWICE for him.

Actually, if you want to "blame" a party for pushing us into the Global Economy, that "blame" falls on the Democrats in the early 20th Century.

Z and Hoagie = completely whacked.


Good Lord, men............





Edit: Mark, too. See above.